The Sun. — London, England, 1810-08-03 00:00:00

0 sue' L 4 IV BEPOBT. CURT or _KING'S BENCH, juty 23. powsoN v. HARPER. , Tins was_ an .a&Aion for goods sold and deli vpred fir. G?%ItROW stated,-that the plaintiff was a. manufa6 4 tirer'of Shavls and b ! .mbazeens, 'residing at No. i 5, St. Ann's-lane, London. The 'Oetendant was a blacksmith at Wolverhampton. The action_ as brought to recover 4.21. 6s. 9d. for goods de livered to In, wife, Who-kept a milliner's and ha berdashefs shop 'before and after her maniage to •the defendant. '• She had been, during ,a, greA parr of that time, in the habit of deAing with the plaintiff, and .had Made her payments regular, with the knowledge of the defendant„, except in the present insfauce. He understood that there had been a quarrel betweit the defer , ‘!atit and his wile, and the defence to be set op was, that the at titles furnished were not necessaries. He could prove ttrat she was a.regular deak.r, with the tonsent of the defendaint, and the good; furnished were articles necessary in her tmsiness ; wh,n he had probed this, Cie plaintifrwould eutta! ito a yerdict 'from - the Jury, orider'llie diretliOn.ot his Lordship. John Watt, warehouseinan to the plaintiff, proved, the Oclivery of tie goods to Mrs. EL: per, at a house . in Aldersgate-street, in• June, 1809. Thotnas Geope, formerly a partner with the -T h y bad reheated . dealings with the de fendant and 'his wife : he had received . seyeral pay- Merits from MrS. Harper, at Wolverhampton : the defendant vas sometimes present. On his, cross-examinat , ,o, he said, he Ceased to be a'partner . with the plaintiff in 1806, and the last payment he received was in the latter end of the year+ 1805, he was not at \Vol , erhampton since that time: he did not know the defendant and his.wile were s , par36 - . , d: • Tbe ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Counsel for the de fendant, stated, there'wasno pretence for the ac -tion •the goods delivered to the defendants wife were inillit,ery finery, and not necessaries he would. prove that the defendant had been separated from her for. years before the goods were ,delivered, and that she had ceased to lieeo a trulliner's shop : in la& she had become a frail one, and had been running the gauntlet through this metropolis.— Under these circumstances, the plaintiff must be nonsuited. John Robinson, an apprentice -to Gawshann and Munyard, Long-acre, blacksmiths, deposed, that toe - defendant worked for . master in October. 1308 : he remembered his wife corning to the work 7 shop - several tidies, 'and kiching up a riot, tA hich obliged the defendant to shift htS , quarters. She had had made them too hot for' him.. Lord ELLENBOROUGH—‘ . ‘, I think, Mr. Garrow, you must shew some express assent on the ptt of the defendant, to entitle the plaintiff to recover." Mr. Gattaow—" I cannot,. my Lord," Lord ELLENBOROUGEI Then let the plaintiff be called sui t ed. NORTII V. TAMBARDE. This was an action to recover '421. Iss. ;i4. for work and labour. ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated, that tlie plain tiff was a boat-buildei - , and the defendant' a Spa,; niard,the Commander of the ship Anna, belci:.g ing to the port of. London ; the action• was brou g h t for the' repairs of two of the ship Anna's boats. The diret-tions were given by the defendant ; he could speak very hate English ; brought an inferpreter ; aod through him gave his orders, and inspected the workmanship from day to day. The boats, when repaired, . vzvre delivered to the defendant : on the bill being presented, he desired the plaintiff 10 - go to his Agent when he went to the Agent, he re• (erred him to another, who sent him back to the de fendant. He would prove the work done, which would entitle the plaintiff to a veidict. Charles Crowpler, a journeyman to the plaintiff, deposed, he knew the defendant; he-was a Spaniard, and Captain of the ship Anna.; he gave the orders through an interpreter : they were put in complete repair , -; he desired that. every bad piece should be .cr.lt.but, if they took their bottoms out; alt the work charged in the bill was done, and the pricei kvere reasonable ; the boats were delivered to the , interpreter. On his cross-examination, he said ; the first time the defendant gave his orders for the repairs was in December, the boats had been in the yards for three months before. - Mr. PULLER, Counsel for the defendant, stated, that the amount of the, bill was not disputed ; the only question was, who ought to be accountable. A .Mr.Whittal was the owner of the ship when the boats were sent to the dockyard; he afterwards parted with her to O'Reilly and Co.: they .would not purchase without WI itial engaged to have the boats repaired. The defendant was the Captain ap pointed by the house of O'Reilly and Co. and. it was natural that,he should inspect the repairing of the boats; but it was understood by all parties that Whin?t was to have paid the Plaintiff. . . "Loki ELLENBOROIJOH—" They did not begin . the repairs until the defendant gave his orders ; it amounted to .the same thing as if he had•sent the boats." Mr. ATTOIINET-GENERAIV—" It is a mere dis-, pute between the vendor and vendee; the plain- Litt e.m only take the, person who gave the direc tions." Lord EI,LENBOROUGH summed up the evidence,. and observed, that a Captain of a ship was liable to pay for any repairs of either ship or boats, w4n be gave orders for them. " • The :fury gave a Verdi& for, the plaintiff-421. 15s. 7d. pla;ntitf had ohly eiarged 451. for the defendant's pas!,age, 201. for,that of her servant ; the other itern.was for Custom-house fees pail on The landing of her Ladyships baggage. He would prove by 'several respe&able witnesses, that the usual.oharge for a person. in the sphere of life of the'defendant, was 50 guineas; and half that suin for her servant ; when he proved this, his clitwit would be enlitled to a verdia. Thesdefendant had paid sotte . nloney into Court. Captain :Richard Tlint deposel, that :the usual charge was fifty. guineas, and for a servant thlity guineas On his,Fross-ekatnination, he said. he had never received thirty guineas for the passage of a servant, but he 11,4 d 2i5 for General Hlrcourt's (the'Gover: nor of 'Si. Croix's) servant, born that Ziland to the 'port of London. Capt. Felan deposed, that he was in the ship that took the defendant out ; he understood she paid 601. for her passage; he eorroborateki the other wit ne-s. as to•the general rate ; but he never saw such tilllllS , paid. . . Captain ,Hutchinson, •an officer in the-customs, proyed, that the plaintiff paid WI. 12s. 6d. duties on the del n rant's baggage. •• Herr the Counsel for the defendant, stated, t hat, his client Mrs. Cianstown, feel much obliged to his Learned Friend Mr. GuToW for hav ing dgn fled her Sne was nut a Lady, -although the mother of Lord Cranstown: The Jury would no dOu:it, be Surprt,ed. to find, at - er they had heard, that t• ere way actual contract with the plaintiff to pay hi f. 401. for the - dcleirdant's and - her servant's passage. It was Lord , Cran,aown . who "trade the.agreemetii. He held in his • hand a &po siti th taken. in thersiiind.;• that ihiee weeksbeforc the , - essei he met thr plaintiff on toe._whatf, and told him hu .a passage to his mother ,LOodon, a d a.krd what he would charge ? Tiie - mutt - answered; 401. His Lord ship said - there wa, a s , an, tp . accompoy The plaintiff ioqUir , --d w:iai age he was ? and he be tug informed that he W'as a stnad hoy; he said, " we will put hint in ; we will not ;:ry'a Word about hitti" The N .ble.Loro then closed with the plaintiff's 'pro position, ind consKered .t a valet one. The &fen dant had paid 50 goes whiCh covered the passage-anoney 401. and ch.irge of 101. 12s. 6d. for duties, which would entitie the dt;enclant . to a verdict. • The answers AO the irterroptions put to the Rigor Flon. Lord CraustoWn were then read by Mr. Lowten. 7 Mr. GARROW replied; and said, that lie had every respect for the Nobly Lord, - but he must say, that he toil mistaken a mere conver%atioii tor an agree ment. It would be an insult to his L , ,rdsitip that his mother, (wit() he now understood from his learned friend was not a lady) ,hould pay Less tor her pas,age that . , a tradestnan's,wife. Lord ELLENBOR.UGIi observed, that the regular price of passage had not'been proved, and if the Juiy believed the deFOsitions Lord Cranstown, they must give, a ventici ior the 'defendant. The Jury were consulting for a short time, wheri Lord LLLENROROUGH said, " Gentlemen, you do not 13.-lieve Lord Cratistown has been guilty of perjury, the defendant is entitled to your ver dict:" r ine Jury returned a verdid for the defendant. THE KING V. COLLIER. This, was an indictment for au asfiault, under cir cumstances of very' great aggravation. 'There were two coipts in the indictment : une was for an nuauli, -in consequence of which the prosecutrix, who was ii the- la,t month of her i;regnaney, of a dead child ; and the other tor a eotninOn assault. The prosecutrix, Mrs. Thomas, stated, that she and Collier tesided in .the same house ; that as she was sweeping the passage on the 20th Of August, the ratter came down stairs, and . forcibly seizing her by both arms, drew hei along' the passage, and at te-mipted to put .her into the street. This, however, Elie prevented by laying hold of the street-doth', which was half-open. Collier then gave her a lent pu , h on the breast, and threw tier down in die passage. She betame extremeiy itl in cons, , quence of this violence, and continued so until the 16th of September, when.she was delivered of a dead burn .infant. The fad of the assault was also confirmed by a female witness, who saw the transatti.n from a second-floor window at the opposite side of the street. • Nfr. Williams, a medical gentleman, said, that he was callQd in, to Mrs. Thomas that he tound her arms much discoloured from the violent pres sure. of Collier's fingers, the marks of which were. very evident. He attended her during her labour, when she was delivered of a dead child Lull grown: He could not determine how , it had been dead ; nor would.he undertake to s.sy that the death was the consequence of the assault. . _ _ _ It turned out on the cross:examination. of Mrs. Thomas, that, in consequence of some embarrass ment into which her husband .had fallen, the land lord of the house in which they resided ,save him noticeto quit, and gfatited a new lease to Collier.— Mrs; Thomas, not choosing to . comply with this mandate, continued ' ins possession, and it was found necessary to call in the assistance of the Sl.eriff, Who, on the 17th of August, three days before the assault, ejected Thomas and his wife in the Usual form, and delivered possession to Col lier. Mrs. Thomas. howevo, re-occupied her old position, when Collier made an ineffectual ef fort to pull - he out of his premises on the . 20th.— She was eventually di,lodged on .the last day of , August, but not without great resistance on her part. Lord ELLENBONOUGIii in charging the Jury, said, that they. were to consider whether the premature labour of the prosecutrix was occasioned by the assault.. It they should be of that opinion, it cer tainly- would be a greet aggravation of the defen dant's offence, and call fora severe punishment. It did not appear, however, from the evidence that such was.the fa6t. The woman had •gone'with child twenty4even. days:after the assault. As to the other count in the indictment, no defence had been made to it, the Counsel for the defendant not being able to prove the service of the legal, notices to quit pos gession.—Guilty on the count charging 'a common assault. 'TOLSON V. CRANSTOWN. This was an aEtion 'brought to recover 651. for the defendant's passage, and her servant, from the island of St. Christopher's . to the Port of London ; also 101. 12s. 6d. for Custom-house fees paid by the plaintiff for getting the defendant's naggag 'on , Mr. GARROW staved, that the plaintiff was the Captain of the ship Fleetwood, an . East Indianan*, and the defendant was the Hon. Lady _Eliza Crans 'town., In the year 1807, she and her wan servant Came ai passengers on board the ship Fleetwood, froin the Island of St. Christopher's for the pay ment of which the present aEtion was brought. The LONDON: Printed by RICHARD HARRIS, or No. 4, Martlett-co la, lioW-street ; and Pc At the .SuN.OFFics i No. ii Strand. where A'civeriiienienis, Orders 1( HOPKINS AND LINCOLN V. PEOGLEISE. his was gn atlion (tried before a Special Jury), to recover' the sum of 11 - 91. 1 is. - gd. for thiriy casks of yellow candle tallow sold to' the de fendant. . GA RROW stated the case on the part of the plaintiffs . , float which it appeared that the ,defend ant, a quaker, and resident at BriStol, wrote to the plaintiffs, who are considerable merchants in the City of London, desiring them to let him know their ',price for yellow candle tallow. The plaintith accordingly informed him, when the defendant, by a letter, dated the 2311 a day of the •ninth month (Sept.) 1809, ordered them to forward him the 1 - quantity, for the recovery of the amount : of which thiS attion was brought, the defendant at the same time reminding the plaintiff that when he used to ;live at another place (Elston) they were in the ha ' bit of making some deductions from - the •regular market price tor-goods sent to him, and adding that if they would still-continue that practice, he might do a great deal for them in. Bristol ; the goods to be sent to the Flambro' Wharf, and forwarded by the Thames and Severn Navigation. The plaintiffs then set to work to execute this order. The invoice for the goods was dated the 20th September, but the letter to, the defendant, inclosing the invoice, was without a date, 'but, the post-mark to the letter was l G Oct. 09." Howeter,' about the Bth or 9111 of the tenth month (October) the defendant obtained intelligence that a large fleet, principally loaded . - with tallow, was duly expected from the Baltic, and expecting that such arrival would tend tolower the price of that article, the Bristol Quaker wanted to get off from his , carder to the plaintiff's, thinking fie might get a little by such conduct, if he' could , succeed, and accordingly \ wrote them a letter, dated tentti month, 09," without naming any date,- in forming them, that he was not in immediate want of the tahow, and that if they, thought it would be ac . - vatitag,eous to wait the arrival of the Baltic fleet, not to Scud the tallow he had ordered. .This-letter, the Learin Counsel contended,' did ribt countermand the peremptory older contained in the letter of Sep tember 28, but merely called on-- them to ,exercise their judgment as to the time when they should exe- Cute the order which, had been peremptOrily given them.—The - plaintiffs had 'received a peremptory or;.. der, and . no peremptory countermand of thaCorder, and they. had. been desired to exercise their judg pent.as to the time of executing such order. They had exercised their judgment ; they sent the goods; and-therefore he maintained they had a right to a verdict. • ' Mr. Thompson was called. He .deposed, that the piaintiffs had no tallow , till the 12th October following, the time when the order was given ; that then 120 casks were landed, which had arrived from St. Pelersburgh. On the 13th, the day' follow ing, 38 casks had been shipped for the flambro' wharf. Mr. Williams, the lighterman, deposed, that on the 12th October, he received directions from the plaintiffs, to take the goods to the Hatribro' wharf, in order to be forwarded to Bristol. That order he could not execute before the lath, fr4 , rn the want of convenient craft. He likewise added, that the plaintiffs had spoken ro him on the 40a, or sth of the same utonth, about the. removal of sonic tallow to the Hambro' wharf. . . . Mr, Pigeon, the proprietor of the Hambro' wharf, proved that the goods to . be forwarded .to the 1:4:..- frroant, by the 'flames and Severn Navigation to Bristol, were landed at his wharf un the . 14th Octo ; if the goods had been tnere on the 12:h they couid not have gone sooner than they did. A letter from the defendant, dated in..the -eleventh mouth was then read, by which he,refuscd to re ceive the casks sent to him, and declining .any in tei ference with them ; _and stating ;hat he thought lie had been u,ed in a very unha•pdsOme manner ; and he thought that to,send the goo4s at the time they had been sent, was an. attempt, on the part dt . plaintltts, to remove.a burden troat'iheir shoulders on to Ins. He not finding the goods _sent. as expected, he should decline having any thing to do . witk thein. • , Mr. Sampson, Clerk to ." the Average Commit tee to regulate the prices of tallow. throughout the Kinclum," proved that the price of such tallow as !tad been sent to the, defendant was at 9Ets. on the 13th of October; and that it was at •the same price on the 6th October preceding. On the 3,1 of November it was at 955& The ATToIiNEI GEN ettAL,for the defendant, ob served that. his' client resisted the payment of the demand which the plaintiffs had made, because be deemed himself justified in so doing.' The defend ant had not, norgbuld he have arty sinister designs in going before a Jury. The plaintiffs had nut landed •any tallow till the 12th Octouer, therefore ,it could not be in their contemplation before that time to execute the defendant's order. The defendant learnt that a Baltic fleet had arrived, and expected that that circumstance would-occasion a decline its. 'the 'mice of tallow, therefore wished desired plaintiff's to wait' the event before tlit:7 tor iA;arded the tallow. They did pot do so, and the defendant thought himself ill used., The defendant wished then{ to take • advantage of what altertliards took place, a decline in tae price. of tal low. On the 13th of October, the plaintiffs sent a letter to the defendant, saying that thirty casks had been sent for him to the Hambro' Wharf; our that was net the fad, for the casks had not been re ceived at the Wharf till the t4th; as had been proved. The plaintiff,. under these circlanstances thought that he was nut btsund to take the tallow. When the plaintiffs inionned the defendant that they charged so ' much for tallow, he thought ,they had some teady to send, which .1r: I turned out not to be the' case. -. But he, the ,Attorney= General, understood, that the son of Mr. 'Hopkins, one of the plaintiff's, and a Mr. Burgess,. were part ners in the concern, while their names were not meteioped in the record. If that were proved to be the case, the plaintiffs in the present action must. be non-suited. Mr. Benjamin Hopkins was then called. He de poSed, that he had a' participation in the profits of the coAern carried On under the name of “ Hop kins and Lincuhi," as a remuneration. for his ser vieek That remuneration was after a specified rate, which he received from the partner Hop kins, and' with whom only he had any concern. )iished by WILLIAM ARMIG E.R SCRIPPS, South Molton.strect, Groavppo—equere. it . tile Paper, Letters for the Editor, &c. (post-paid); must be addressed. , • Ile person named Burgess wa , i•simiLirly sitented to hims•df. They both received a specifii: stare out of the share received by Hopkins IFo u the concern. They received a' slire , trout the pro" fit of the concern, and if there were no pro" fits, they would receive no sham., They bad . no concern' whatever N% i t h Lincoln, .the partner. • „ . Lord ELLEJDOROUGII admitted, that that .evt delice had raised a poitit that he did not remember to have occurred. The ATTottNEY-GENERAL submitted,' that the way to settle the point; would be to determine , ~.whether Hopkins, the witnes , , and lllrgess, woulo be liable to ally action incurred by the parthershiti . concern. ( Mr. GAR ROW humbly sub,rnitted, that they not be liable, as the pArtnerthip was restrained JP Hopkins and Lincoln. The ATTORNEY-GENER AL contended, that if what Hopkins the witness and Burgess received depend ed upon 'the profits of the trade, they, to all in', tents and purposes, had interests in the concern, consequently were partners. He would not then press the paint, but hoped that his Lordship would allow him to resene the point (Or the consideration of the Court, in case his client 4 should think tit to move for a new trial if the verdict should go against them. Lord ELLENBOROUG,H said,, certainly the pia might be reserved.. .:Tlie witilegs and Mr. Butge o received their rkthuneration from one ,of the part" Hers : they did not dertve their profits from the part-: nee :hip concern. , GARROW, in reply, said that the Attorney' General had taken cOmfneadable pains to save big client from indelible disgrace. ' - Lord ELLANIMROUG H observed to the Jury, that the letter sent to the plaint:lfs gave them . a disc • lion, whether they ..,hoUld send the goods or not. The plaintith nochange in tb:.p r i ces , t here 'fore th ey 5.,..nt the goods.: If . the Jury, after cow' si..!ering the whole of the circumstances * , should think that the transaction was not irregular, they would find a verdict for the plaintiffs. The Jury returned a verdiai for the plaintiffs, fof 11501. being the debt, with interest.— We understand tlmtA he tommissioners appointed by his Grace the Lord L t ieuteuant to lend money fnt. the relief of the Manufa&urers and Traders, have al' ready granted the sum of 50,0001. to u who employ 4,000 persons in d4ferent branches , and that many other applications are how under con" sideration. Within these ten days back, a flock of birds haws made their apppearance about' Aher.,it-en of a species rarely seen in Ibis country. They ate of. the gent l4 Lova or Curvirostra, 'commonly , called Croisbilli and German Parrot. They are inhibnams of Svve" den, Germany, and the 'Southern. parts of RusA 3 o and migrate periodically to this country. The fas t flock seen here was t 7 years ago. They generaLY fix their residence in the neighbourhood of pio Moods, the seed of which is their usual food. hers of them have been shot at this time. The wale is of a red-lead colour, mixed with deep brown, and has black legs. The colour of the female inclines green, streaked with brows. lyzkPo. GRAVESEND., AUGUST 1. Arrived—the liraganza, Hart, frem Buenos-Ayres.; Cita ker, Dalker, froin arnaica t.sealeby Castle, • Nottingha ali Warren Castle; •Persr.!verance, and Albion,. from I - Sailed—the Charlotte and Ann, Charity:v . o 4dr - Lisbon.; Darlington, lohnson, for Dominica; John ;:nd Thornas, Ivt chvlson, for Maltz!'; - and the Mary ; Barker, ter Oporto. • • Un Friday last, at Mount Browne, Ireland, the -sea; c ' t. the Right HOn. , DenisTrowne,fhe Lady of Min Catdr, E- 51 : of liecicenham-place, Kent, of a DAngilter'. On the 3th ult. at Chetwynd P..rk, Shropshire, the I,2cif of T. Borough, Esti of a Son. On the [stinsr. at Brig,hion,..the Lady of the Hon. F.'"" ward lohn Tur,our, youngest son of tne late Earl I dio t ' l. 7 tun, of a Daughter, . , At Conway, North Wales, the Lady of Lieutenant St e ' phen Liddell; N. of a Sun. n ere to Clonmel, Mrs. Aylmer, Lady . Charles AY" - Esq. :Assistant Commissary.:General to the forces Portugal, of a•Son. .In• Molesworth- street, Dublin, the Lady of Ross :\ fah° f Esq. of a Daughter. • • f 1 ,14 1 ,1 H I I - 1). On Tuesday last, at St 'George's Church, Hanover-squa re v '' Mr. Paul Methuen, to MisS Mlldmay, sister' to Sir ktar r J Mildmay. On Thursday, at Lewisham, the Rev. Edward Alen, VI of William Allen, Esq of Lewisham, to Ann, the youog e t : daughter of !Win St. l3arbe, Esq. of Dartmouth-row, 131A 0.- heath. ' • The same day, at St. George's Church, Hanover-squ' r , e ; James Campbell, Esq. to Ann, eldest daught e r o f the. i''' - john. Armstrong, Esq. • Yesterday, Mr. john Partridge, of Burr.street, merchant, to 'Miss ‘Vare', daughter'of Mr. Wale, Southwark,' • • , The same day, the Rev. 1. Cholmeley, l eaor of Bret' diain, -Norfolk, second son . of the late Choltheley, b 64 ' of Easton, Lincolnshire, alaihruthor ot S t ir Montague C10° 1 '; ley, hart. to'Selina Eliza, titird daughter of Richard Pull' : ESq.• ot Great Winchester-street. • Yesterday ,se!nnight, at Brancepeth, in the County °( 'Durham, the Rev. john Beresford, eldest son of the 11° `,, and Must ketti•his Ur:lc& the' Lord Archbishop of t , Miss Horsley, only daughter and. heiteSs of Robert Holsi e) : Esq. late of Bolan, in the COunty of Northumberland, le ceased. On the r9fh ult. at Rornaldkirk Church, Mr. lohll t i nt chinsoo r senior, of klunderthwaite, to Miss Bcdale, . . wick. ot At the• same time;• Miss Sarah flutchin-on, 101- - . „.. IVlr. lohn II utchinzon, to William Bell, I ri,keoper, of derthwaite. • father and. daughter were Loth couplcd , " l „,,:y one ceremony. On the day following; Mrs:. Pell wa , sa s t L i,e, delivered of a child, which, on the third, was interred . at same church where its mother and grandfather were, but t days betine, united in the bands of Hymen` I DIM... , e On Friiay . the 27th ult. at her house in South-st r-e r, Finsbury, Mrs. Rebecca Tomkins. . . we st. On Tuesday morning, at his house in Crown-street, Minster, Mr. Powell, Assistant clerk to Mr. ChinnerY9. 4 the Treasury Department. I it Early on Wednesday morning, after a Jong and pia'', ,S 'ness, Joseph Cade, hsq. of Garlick-hill, London, ige" 4 years. ' • ' - , , _....- • • ?RICA: Oh 510. , ..'it..1 - . i . ~ ~ Y ESTERDAY. Bank Stock, 263 1 '269'263 b India Stock, Navy per -Cent. 99 i‘i i i I nitta Bonds, 7.25. 231. P r * q Irish per ,Cent. Excheq.'Bil ts, 45. 7s• P r * 4 per Lent. 84i i Sc -A- Ornititun,.i.a I I dis. i 1 per Cent. ken. 6 4 g 1 k.-a- 'lmperial 3 per Cent. s . 3 per Cent. -Cons. 66p i 4 ' Cons. for zytti Aug. 63 s k Bank' I— Ann. tli . t; .1 ; I 1 '1